U.S. Supreme Court
The Euphrates, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 385 385 (1814)
12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 385
Further proof, inconsistent with that already in the case, refused on the part of the claimant.
The merchandise in this case was libeled in the District Court of Rhode Island as belonging to subjects of Great Britain. The capture was stated in the libel to have been made on or about 23 August, 1812. No libel was filed against the vessel.
In June term, 1813, a claim was interposed on behalf of the United States, on the ground that these goods were imported in violation of the nonintercourse laws.
In May, 1813, Matthias Bruen interposed a claim to certain merchandise on board of the Euphrates, alleging that he is the sole legal owner thereof.
The papers connected with this shipment were as follow:
1. An invoice dated Mansfield, 30 June, 1812, purporting the goods therein described to be shipped at Liverpool, under insurance, consigned to Mr. Henry Watkinson, New York, or in case of his absence to Mr. John French Ellis of that place, for sale on account of the manufacturers, Siddons & Johnston, who were British subjects.
2. A bill of lading by which it appeared that the goods were shipped at Liverpool on 7 July, 1812, on board of the Euphrates, to be delivered to Henry Watkinson, he paying freight, &c.
3. A letter from Siddons & Johnston dated Mansfield, 30 June, 1812, in which they say
"We have this day consigned to you for sale on our account sixteen trunks, . . . (which are the goods claimed). We hope we shall shortly hear of sales being made by you, to advantage; we hope they will at least net us what they are invoiced at, covering all expenses.
We shall leave this shipment to your discretion to make the best and most advantageous returns you can."
There being no proof whatever on the part of the claimant, and he not appearing to have any interest whatever by any of the papers on board, the goods were condemned both in the district and circuit courts, and the claimants adjudged to pay costs to the libellants.
From this decree there was an appeal on the part of Mr. Bruen to this Court. chanrobles.com-red